Well, yeah! They may not be healthy, but.....

I'll pass on the poutine and pecan pie, but the others sure look good. I was surprised that baby back ribs contain less fat than the St Louis ribs.
 
>> Maybe a volume thing.

oh the wonders of misguided / malquoted / intentionally misused data....

it's all talking heads - yammer yammer yammer, nothing worth hearing.

just saw a blurb on heart healthy Valentine Day desserts.
okay.
so one day a year you're gonna eat healthy, right?

sheesh what a waste of bandwidth.
 
Chowder - I get that you are not find of the article. I don't understand your quoting my statement as a lead in. Or am I wasting the bandwidth?
 
eau de contraire.

you're lead in is exactly right.

wonder why neither the author or the editor has no clue about the size of rib thingies. . . . why would anyone suspect a rack of country ribs spanning two plates might have more fat than half a dozen little rib bones on a saucer, with room to spare (rib)

>>bandwidth
that I reserved for the healthy Valentine dessert.
or any dessert, no?
anyone really think dessert style sugars & fats is good for your health?
I think they invented sugar free jello so as to make jello healthy....
anybody gonna' give up the oddnowandagain dessert?
 
St. Louis style ribs are just spare ribs cut down. They are from a different part of the pig and are, indeed, fattier than babyback ribs.

Country style "ribs" (I didn't see them mentioned anywhere but in Chowderman's post, but I may have missed it) can be cut either from the loin or the butt, bone in or boneless, and can pretty much be whatever the market feels like labeling "ribs", at least in my supermarket.

Lee
 
"country style" in this neck of the woods is the whole rib including the meat around and above the spine. basically I suppose the whole rack before they start making fancy names of out it.... could be what elseplaces just call "spare ribs"

here we get, in the full version, "baby back spare ribs" - regional differences?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top